10mm on a crop, rear focus, front element doesn't rotate, often super crisp in the center, wide open images are sharp in the center

Cons:

EF-S, chromatic aberrations in the corners,

I shoot this thing at 10mm all the time and most of the time i really like the images. It is not L quality but the UD lens does cut down on flare. I have had no issues with that. I have used in in many extreme environments and still works great. Must be attributed to the rear focusing system. Not much moves on the outside. I even got grit from the beach in it and with in a couple of days the gut wrenching grinding sound had worked its way OUT, not in the lens. Using this for star photography is not what I advise... the f3.5 wide open, bumps up the ISO and it just doesn't come out how you would like. HDR multi exposure panoramic (below) or just pushing the background way back (also below) this thing works great.

I cant say i don't recommend it, BUT it is an EF-S lens. I wish i knew then what i know now.

Feb 6, 2015

moimanOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 30, 2011Location: United StatesPosts: 2

Review Date: May 9, 2014

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $429.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Nice and wide on a crop body,low distortion,quiet//fast focusing,filter size,compact/light weight,decently sharp. A great tool for someone who knows how to use it properly.

Cons:

Could be sharper but a lens of this focal range is difficult to design. Might check out the Tokina 12-24,it retains better detail of people in a large group.

Had this lens long ago but sold it and made due with my 17-55 IS lens. Recently saw a low used price[9 cond.] and jumped on it. After using it for a shoot I realized how restricted I was using a focal length of only 27mm. Used properly, this lens can create dynamic images of people up close/environment or landscape/seascape with the right foreground subject. It's not as sharp as the 17-55 but it sharpens up nicely. Flare is well controlled unlike the 17-55.
Having a lens this wide takes discipline in not using it at the widest focal length all the time. It's also a life saver when in tight quarters. Great wide range that will allow you to be creative and give you a different look.

May 9, 2014

hans.dampfOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 12, 2014Location: N/APosts: 11

Review Date: Mar 4, 2014

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Light weight
Good color and sharpness across the range
Cool effect of creating depth through ultra-wide look of picture

Cons:

Limited use for some types of photography
Distortion (can easily be corrected in post production)
Vignetting (can easily be corrected in post production)
Price (Tamron 10-24 mm is much cheaper and not much worse)

I just bought this 10 -22mm lens and I must say that I'm already hooked! I was pleasantly surprised from the first photos ...
Just for the record - I had the Tamron 10-24mm before, but the Canon is sharper, especially wide open.

I have used it on a 600D and 60D and the lens and the body get along very well. This objective is rather lightweight and compact but without too much plastic. Instead, it gives an impression of solidity. Its minimum focus distance of 24 cm.
Photos show excellent sharpness and microcontrast, including in low light. So I could take pictures of night lit buildings, freehand (to ISO 2000) without obtaining any blurry photos!
As this is an ultra wide angle lens, distortion is quite noticeable close to the edges when the subject is close enough. It is therefore necessary to rework these photos in post-processing software to correct perspectives, remembering to leave a little room to the right and left when the photo was taken. The automatic lens profiles in Lightroom work very well for me for automatic correction.
Now, these distortions can be used to produce "special effects" ... and make more original pictures.
In any case, I think it's very nice not having to move backwards too much (if even possible) to bring an entire landscape or a building face on one photo!
USM is very responsive and allows to focus quickly and accurately.
Technically, this lens has an optical system 13 elements including a Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass lens and two aspherical lenses divided into 10 groups. The front lens does not rotate during focusing, the use of polarizing filters and gradients is perfectly possible.
In the end, I believe it is almost perfect for landscape photos, indoor and for panoramic shots incorporating the effects of original perspective.

I also use this lens for wedding photography for shots of sourroundings. As someone said, always try to capture a scene with a close-up, normal and wide perspective or things tend to get boring.

Great lens for landscape photography! Also for creating interesting shots with architecture and lines. Be careful though if you are taking pictures of someone that you put the subject in in the middle of the picture otherwise the distortion will be significant and rather amusing. Cost is relatively expensive for an EFS lens but it is worth it for landscape shots alone.

This is an amazing lens for landscape photography. It is incredibly sharp, and it focuses fast and silently. Distortions are there, but pretty typical for ultra-wide lenses, just need to use them to your advantage.

I sometimes wish it could be faster (say, go to a f2.8), for indoor photography purposes.

Here are some sample night photography shots I took using the 10-22 (all taken at 10mm):

Distortion at 10 mm
Resolution at the edges remains behind on the center

The Canon 10-22 mm is a light and relatively compact wide-angle zoom lens with decent performances. For a wide angle zoom lens, distortion, chromatic aberration and flare are well controlled. Who uses the standard lens profiles in Lightroom will not suffer from chromatic aberration and distortion in practice. Relatively speaking, the optical performances at 10 mm are a little less than at the other focal lengths. At 10 mm, you win resolution in the center by stopping down 1 or 2 stops. At the other focal lengths, you already reach the highest resolution at full aperture. At all focal lengths, the Canon 10-22 mm performs better in terms of resolution in the center than in the extreme corners.

In terms of viewing angle and image quality, the Canon 10-22 mm does not differ much from the more expensive Canon 16-35 mm lens MK2 lens. If you take the same photo at a focal length of 24 mm @ full-frame with a Canon 5D MK2 + Canon 16-35 MK2 combination and put it next to a photo taken with the Canon 7D + Canon 10-22 mm combination, it is hard to determine what images was taken by what camera. Unfortunately, the Canon 10-22 mm 3.5-4.5 is not as bright as the Canon 16-35 mm 2.8 MK2.

Not fast (f/2.8) or image stabilized, though for my use (landscape photographer) it is perfect

Great ultrawide lens with a very useful focal length range covered. Bought it over the Tokina 11-16mm as I needed the extra range more than the f/2.8 (I almost never shoot wide open anyway).
It's nice this lens takes 77mm filters, which allows me to share filters between this lens and my 17-55mm. Unlike the 17-55mm, this lens is very flare resistant which is a big advantage for landscape photography. I only wish this would go as wide as the Sigma 8-16mm though unlike the Sigma lens this takes filters, which I find indispensible.
I also really like how light and small this lens is, and the build quality is quite good (though not stellar).
Image quality for an ultrawide is fantastic and is as good as the 17-55mm lens at overlapping focal lengths. During the day I prefer shooting with the 10-22mm over the 17-55mm because of it's flare resistance.
Other lenses owned: 17-55mm, 100mm f/2.8L, 200mm f/2.8 II (all used on 550D/T2i)

Aug 20, 2011

WiredMikeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 18, 2010Location: United StatesPosts: 76

Review Date: Aug 5, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

- Nice IQ
- Have not noticed any issues throughout the range as mentioned in other posts.
- It is just a flat out fun lens to own

Cons:

No hood included for the price paid.

I use this on my Canon T2i and it has a permanant place in my camera bag regardless of what I will be shooting that day.
I am by no means a professional and many of the shots I take are a bit far from the norm and this lens fits me perfectly and lets me be creative with normal everyday scenes.

I did minus on the build quality due to the opening at the rear of the lens that is subjective to dust and small planets its so huge. But as far as the rest of the build quality it feels solid and the action is smooth.
I also gave a minus on the price due to the fact that it did not include a hood. Seriously Canon? A 20 dollar hood and you couldnt put one in the box? Oh well.

Aug 5, 2011

AputureOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 10, 2010Location: ChinaPosts: 4

Review Date: Jun 16, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

feels great on a canon body, lightweight, looks good, solid colors and sharpness

Cons:

not quite up to L standards, no good on full frame,

ive had this lens for the past five years and ive been pretty happy with it. there are other wide angle lenses on the market with better features, but considering the sum of its parts, i think this one takes the cake. it feels great on my camera, in my hands, and gets me great pictures at the end of the day!

This is a great lens. Colour, sharpness and contrast are excellent. 16mm wide equivalent is essential for landscape photography and for tight spaces indoors. 35mm equivalent is excellent for enviromental portraits, a classic focal length. I quite often have this on my camera and a 50 or 85mm prime for tight stuff, my favourite walk around combination at the moment.

The bad stuff.
In high contrast areas there is quite often noticeable purple fringing. With some small adjustments to the CA sliders in bibble it goes away (about .14 R/C and .4 B/Y).
Variable and slow aperture is not great but I can absolutely live with it to get this image quality in a lens this size and weight.
Don't put people in the corners at 10mm, they look very strange, otherwise the distortion is not too bad.

If you like wide and have a crop canon, get this lens. If you don't like wide then get this lens and you will learn to love it .

May 13, 2011

shroud72OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 11, 2011Location: SpainPosts: 90

Review Date: May 12, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Sharp Lens
Nice Colors
Extreme Wide Angle of View
USM

Cons:

Expensive

I really wanted a good landscape lens and this one works well. As an ultrawide lens it does enlarge what is close and push back what is far but this can be used to an artistic advantage.
I use it mostly for handheld HDR as at 10mm and with AEB you can fire shots off fast enough without the need for a tripod.
The lens is a specialty lens and therefore is expensive, but if you need an ultrawide for a Canon Crop camera this one is worth it.

I'm hoping the collective mind of FM can shed some light on the performance of my 10-22. I really wanted to love this lens but its softness disappoints me. Am I too spoiled by my reference prime, or do I have a bad copy? This image is taken with my 7D on a sturdy tripod, MLU enabled, 1/200 at f3.5 at ISO 400 and it is representative of the performance of this lens in other settings:

Camera was set to large fine JPEG, with the Portrait picture style. No image processing outside the camera. I used spot focus on the apple on the tissue box and repeated several times. To my eye this lens neither front focuses nor back focuses...it's just soft.

Feb 21, 2011

NotoriousSEGOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 1, 2009Location: United StatesPosts: 200

Review Date: Jan 23, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $769.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Sharp as a newly honed straight razor.

Cons:

A tad on the slowish side.

I have read some reviews that are all over the board on this lens, but my experience should help sway you if you are on the fence about buying one.

My copy is sharper than THREE different copies of the much ballyhooed 70-200L f4 that many consider to be one of Canon's sharpest pieces of glass. It is also sharper than TWO different copies of the 70-200L 2.8--one of which I currently own. I wouldn't say it is sharpER, but at least AS SHARP as my 24L 1.4.

Did I mention this lens is sharp?

Color rendition is superb resulting in very vivid scenes. Distortion is minimal at 10mm and gone by about 14mm. I haven't noticed any flair (but I do have a hood) and my copy has no purple fringing to speak of.

My only beef is that it isn't a constant 2.8. If it were, I would have gladly paid twice what I paid.

I recently took a vacation in which I had my usual 30lbs of gear in tow. After a week and close to 500 shots, it dawned on me that every single picture I took was taken with this lens.

Bottom line: if you have a crop bodied camera, you will most likely want this lens. I know not everyone likes to shoot wide--I didn't used to either--but this lens opens a plethora of creative possibilities that I didn't even know existed before.

Get one, you can thank me later.

Jan 23, 2011

piotrmacOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 6, 2005Location: PolandPosts: 50

Review Date: Dec 8, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $730.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Sharp, lightweight, contrast, colour rendition, easy to make it work with FF bodies (works as 16-22mm).

Cons:

Build quality could be a bit higher, but it's not too bad at all. CA in corners when used on FF but it's easy to remove in PP and it's actually not meant for FF.

I love this lens. I can compain about build quality and CA on FF body... but it has close to L series IQ. Built quality is also not too bad as I've been using it for over 4 years and it looks like new. Great for landscapes and architecture. If you got 1.6 crop body - that's the most recommended true UWA lense.

Dec 8, 2010

KevinAOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 5, 2006Location: United KingdomPosts: 0

Review Date: Oct 18, 2010

Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros:

OK for day to day use with the Sun over your shoulder.

Cons:

Flare Flare and did I mention Flare......Oh and it's the most ugly flare you have ever seen.

OK it's close to the 17 - 40mm L for sharpness, it's light weight and build quality is good. I am sending my one back today, point this lens towards any light source, Sun, reflection on water etc and it will produce the most awful flare I have ever seen. I have a late 1800's uncoated brass lens that does not flare like this.
Don't think it's something you could tweak in Photoshop either, this is every kind of flare you have ever seen all in one lens and all over the image, it's plain ugly. I was shocked at how bad it is.
Yes it's a decent performer until you decide to shoot something back lit.
The 17 - 40mm lens on full frame handles flare very well and keeps the colour and contrast. The 10 - 22 is not in the same league, no this is not "L" quality at a knock down price, if you keep the Sun over your shoulder you will never have a complaint. Shoot something backlit and you are in for a shock.
I am very disappointed with this performance, the flare is so bad I think the lens is pointless to have in your bag as lots of great images will be ruined beyond salvage with this.
I do have full frame and the 17 - 40 mm, I am not a fan of the 17 - 40 mm sharpness (I have primes for that) but for it's ability to shoot into the light I think it's extremely good. Seriously I would stay well away from the 10 -22 mm if photography is a serious business for you.